Back

Correcting drug-resistance prevalence in tuberculosis using a predictive model of diagnostic access

Aguilar Jimenez, J. R.; Diaz-Quijano, F. A.

2025-10-29 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.10.27.25338839 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDrug resistance (DR) poses a major challenge to tuberculosis (TB) elimination. Incomplete access to diagnostic tests can lead to under detection and biased DR-TB prevalence indicators. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of DR-TB, identified through any available diagnostic method, while correcting for disparities in access to rapid molecular testing (Xpert(R)MTB/RIF), used as a proxy for overall diagnostic capacity. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of new TB cases in individuals aged over 18 (n=406,331), using 2015-2020 data from the Brazilian Information System on Notifiable Diseases (SINAN). We assumed that access to Xpert(R)MTB/RIF was an indicator of better diagnostic conditions for detecting drug resistance in general, because patients who underwent this test had a higher prevalence of all forms of resistance (not just to rifampicin). We developed a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model, incorporating individual- and municipality-level variables, to predict access to Xpert(R)MTB/RIF testing in a random sample of 81,027 observations. The model was validated using out-of-sample observations across geographic areas. We then used inverse probability weighting based on predicted access to calculate corrected estimates of DR-TB prevalence. ResultsThe model showed good performance (AUC=80{middle dot}93%, 95%CI: 80{middle dot}71%-81{middle dot}33%). The prevalence of DR-TB reported by the surveillance system was 1{middle dot}54% (95%CI: 1{middle dot}50%-1{middle dot}57%). Among patients tested with Xpert(R)MTB/RIF, DR-TB prevalence was 3{middle dot}86% (95%CI: 3{middle dot}75%-3{middle dot}96%), and the corrected weighted prevalence was 5{middle dot}95% (95%CI: 5{middle dot}54%-6{middle dot}38%). ConclusionsThe prevalence of DR-TB may be substantially underestimated due to uneven access to testing. Our approach highlights the importance of correcting for diagnostic access to improve surveillance indicators.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.